:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:國小社會學習領域建構式教學之研究
作者:黃景裕
作者(外文):Ching-Yu Huang
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:公民教育與活動領導學系
指導教授:沈六
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2004
主題關鍵詞:社會學習領域建構式教學批判思考social studies fieldconstructivist approach teachingcritical thinking
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(4) 博士論文(2) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:78
本研究旨在藉社會學習領域建構式教學方案的設計及實際的教學,以探究建構式教學之實施成效,做為課程教學改革的參考。
本研究採不等組前後測實驗設計,樣本取自台東市心心國小(代名)五年級兩個班級的64名學生,實驗組接受建構式教學,控制組則否。本研究並以康乃爾批判思考測驗(x級),及自編之社會學習領域學業成就測驗為評量工具,考驗學生教學前後的改變情形。另外,輔以教室觀察及訪談所得資料,探討教室內運作課程的實際情形。
本研究經三個月的實驗,其所獲致的結論如下:
一、在教學方案設計方面:根據建構教學理論基礎之分析,建構式教學宜把握之重點為:(1)學生是學習的主體;(2)提供學生較具體且真實的生活經驗;(3)讓學生經歷認知失衡的歷程;(4)新建構之概念有運用的機會;(5)提供學習反思。
二、在教學實驗結果方面:建建構式教學有助於提升學生的學習成就及批判思考能力,且獲致學生正向的評價。
三、在教室運作課程方面:實驗組除了顯示出較具開放及支持性的學習氣氛外,也呈現出以下之教學特色:重視生活情境的學習、善用各種提問策略、提供學習鷹架、引導學生解析問題的來源、提供具爭議性議題討論及適時澄清學生的迷思概念。
四、在課後省思方面:實驗組教師透過省思日誌及與研究者的討論,進行教學反思,正向肯定建構式教學的價值,不但使其更加精熟瞭解並欣賞學生的思考,其教學能力也獲得再提升。
根據研究結論,本研究提出以下建議:
一、在教學方案設計方面,教學者宜具備瞭解建構式教學理論、精熟建構式教學理念及靈活運用教學模式等知能。
二、在教學應用方面,必須建構「建構式教學」的有利環境、建立學生對建構式教學的信心、多提供學生討論及發表的機會、適時提供學習鷹架、隨時檢視自己的教學行為、耐心等待結果、學校行政應全力配合並支援教學。
三、在未來研究方面,可針對學習評量工具、教師教學行為,及學生建構知識的歷程與可能性等主題進行研究。
關鍵字:社會學習領域、建構式教學、批判思考
The study explored into the design and implementation of the constructivist approach teaching in social studies field to understand the implementation results of constructivist approach teaching for future teaching reform reference.
The study employed a nonequivalent-group pretest-posttest design. A random sampling was conducted on 64 students from two classes at Grade 5 of the Hsin Hsin Public Elementary School (Alias) in Taitung city. Constructivist approach teaching was used on the experiment group and regular teaching was used on the control group. Pre-test and post-test conditions of students were measured using the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (Level X) and the self-developed social studies academic achievement test. Classroom audit observation and interviews were conducted to understand actual classroom teaching conditions.
The following conclusions were reached after three-month research:
1.Teaching design: An analysis of the constructivist approach teaching theoretical foundation learned the following teaching essentials:(1) Students were the learning subjects. (2) The method provided students with more specific and realistic life experiences. (3) It allowed students to experience the cognitive dissonance process. (4) There were opportunities for which new constructivist concepts may be employed. (5) The method provided learning introspection.
2.Empirical results of the teaching: Constructivist approach teaching could bolster the student’s academic achievement performance and critical thinking ability, as well as the positive evaluation of students.
3.Classroom teaching approach: The experiment group not only manifested a more open and supportive learning atmosphere, but also reflected the following teaching features: pay much attention to the learning of real life; make good uses of quizzing strategy; provide the learning framework; guide students to resolve and analyze the source of question and problem; provide the discussions on controversial topics and timely clarify students’ confusing ideas.
4.After-class introspection: The experiment group teacher reviewed the teaching method through the introspection diaries and discussions with researchers. The teacher positively affirmed the value of constructivist approach teaching, since it not only allowed him/her to have a better understanding and appreciation of the students’ thinking, but also improved his/her teaching ability.
The conclusions made some recommendations in the matter of teaching method design, teaching method application, and future research direction. The recommendation serves as reference for teachers intending to implement constructivist approach teaching and for parties interested in conducting further studies.
The following recommendations are hereby made based on the research findings:
1.In terms of the teaching design, teachers should have knowledge of the constructivist approach teaching, familiarize themselves with ideas of the constructivist approach teaching and cleverly apply teaching models.
2.In terms of the application of teachings, an environment beneficial to the constructivist approach teaching has to be put into place in order to build students’ confidence in the constructivist approach teaching, create opportunities for students to participate in discussions as well as expressing their thoughts, provide the learning framework at appropriate time, review teaching behaviors by teachers themselves all the time, await results patiently and obtain full coordination and support from schools’ administration function
3.In terms of future research interests, possible directions include learning evaluation tools, teachers’ teaching behaviors and the process and possibilities of students’ construction of knowledge.
Keywords: social studies, constructivist approach teaching, critical thinking
參 考 書 目
壹、中文部分
王美芬、熊召弟(1995)。國民小學自然科教材教法。台北:心理出版社。
王澄霞(1996),化學領域之STS師資培育課程架構,化學期刊,54(2)
,103-114。
王浩博(1997)。國民小學社會科課程標準與社會科未來的走向,載於台灣省國民教師研習會(主編),國民小學社會科新課程論文專輯(頁29-35)。台北:台灣省國民教師研習會。
Kuhn, T. S.(1970/1989). The Structure of Scientific Revolution.
王道環(譯)。科學革命的結構。台北:允晨。
王靜如(1997)。系統化改變國小自然科教學之研究(Ι)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,NSC-86-2511-S-153-002。new window
石雅玟(2000)。花蓮地區國小教師議題中心教學信念及多元文化議題調查之研究。國立花蓮師範學院多元文化研究所碩士論文。
朱則剛(1994)。教育工學的發展與派典演化。台北:師大書苑。new window
朱湘吉(1992)。新觀念、新挑戰-建構主義的教學系統。教學科技與媒體,2,15-20。new window
伍振鷟(1989)。教育哲學。台北:師大書苑。
沈 六(1986)。國中公民與道德教學評量之研究。中等學校人文社會
學科教育研討會報告書。國立台灣師範大學。
李咏吟(1998)。認知教學-理論與策略。心理出版社。
余民寧(1997)。有意義的學習-概念構圖之研究。台北:商鼎。new window
吳俊升(1988)。教育哲學大綱。台北:商務。
吳芝儀(2000)。建構論觀點的學習與教學。師鐸,16,104-114。
吳璧純(1996)。從變異與選擇建構論的觀點看另類評量。教育研究雙月刊,49,46-61。new window
吳壁純(2002)。建構主義取向教學-師生交互猜測、相互成長的活動。載於詹志禹(主編),建構論-理論基礎與教育應用(頁61-167)。
台北:正中。
吳壁純、詹志禹(2002)。教育心理的回顧與展望。教育研究,70,42-53。new window
吳景峰(1997)。「個人檔案記錄評量」在多元化教學評量中的應用。
載於鄧運林(主編),開放教育多元評量(頁125-137)。高雄:復文。
李 暉(1993)。國中理化教師試行建構主義教學之個案研究。國立彰
化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
何明潭、陳美音(2001)。以建構取向實施國小社會科課程統整教學(上)
。教師之友,42(5),26-33。
何明潭、陳美音(民91)。以建構取向實施國小社會科課程統整教學(下)
。教師之友,43(1),30-38。
何俊青(2000)。建構式概念教學在國民小學社會科的實驗研究。國立new window
高雄師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
林生傳(1998)。建構主義的教學評析。課程與教學,1(3),15-30。new window
林曉雯(2000):建構主義教學策略-學習環的基本理念及國小自然科
學設計舉隅。科學教育,11,43-51。
林顯輝(1993)。科學、技學和社會三者相結合的科學教育新理念,
國教天地,87,24-32。
林麗羡、陳龍川(1996)。建構主義教室的呈現。國教園地,55/56,
22-27。
邱上真(1991)。發現式學習理論。載於張壽山(主編),學習理論與
教學應用(頁75-104)。台灣省教育廳。
周鳳美(2001)。國小社會科的教學創新:建構主義取向的教學。論文
發表於高雄師範大學主辦之九年一貫課程改革下的創新教學研討會,高雄。
周鳳美(2002)。建構主義取向的社會科教學-從理論到實施。論文發new window
表於台灣師範大學主辦之新課程建構式教學研討會,台北。
胡志偉(1997)。國小教師對建構教學的看法與使用意願。教育與心理研究,20,55-70。new window
范信賢(2000)。教師身分認同與課程改革:後殖民論述的探討。國教學報,12,275-287。
洪麗卿(2002)。社會科概念構圖教學策略之建構。花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。new window
柯怡君(1994)。以問題中心的教學策略在資優班與普通班實施的比較。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
馬信行(1996)。後現代主義對教育的影響。教育研究雙月刊,8(50),new window
12-23。
秦葆琦(1995)。國民小學社會科新課程簡介。載於台灣省國民學校教師研習會(編),國民小學新課程標準的精神與特色(頁154-170)
秦葆琦(1990)。當前國民小學社會科教材教法之探討。國教天地,84
,20-23。
秦葆琦(2000)。國民小學社會領域之教學設計探討。研習資訊,17(4)
,12-24。
徐照麗(1996)。以建構主義為基礎的教學設計。載於國立台中師範學院初等教學系(主編),「建構主義的教學」研討會手冊(頁6-17)。國立台中師範學院。
教育部編印(2000)。社會學習領域綱要。台北:教育部。
張玉成(1983)。教師發問技巧及其對學生創造思考能力影響之研究。new window
台北:教育部教育計畫小組編印。
張春興(2002)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。台北:東華書局。
張舜棠(1999)。國小六年級社會科的潛在課程:一個班級之個案研究
。台中師院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
張靜嚳(1996)。何謂建構主義。建構與教學,3,1-4。
。台北:台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
屠炳春(1992)。社會科課程的理念。載於教育部人文及社會學科教育指導委員會(主編),社會科教學研究(頁1-17)。台北:幼獅文化。
郭重吉(1988)。從認知觀點探討自然科學的學習。教育學院學報,13,
352-378。
郭重吉(1992)。從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊,20(5),548-570。new window
郭重吉(1996)。科學哲學的省思。教育雙月刊,49,16-24。
許良榮(1993)。談建構主義之理論觀點與教學的爭論。國教輔導,33(2),7-12。
陳石峰(1998)。一位高中生物教師施行建構主義取向教學之個案研究-成長與省思。高雄師大科學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳美玉(1998)。教師專業:教學法的省思與突破。高雄:麗文。new window
陳伯璋(1999)。「邁向新世紀的課程」--九年一貫課程的理念、內涵與評析,載於台灣省國民學校教師研習會(編),「國民教育階段九年一貫課程座談會實錄專輯」(頁35-56)。台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
陳麗華、王鳳敏(1996)。美國社會科課程標準。臺北:教育部。
陳素櫻(1997)。回歸評量的本質談開放教育中的評量。載於鄧運林(編),開放教育多元評量。高雄:復文。
陳英豪、吳裕益(1995)。測驗與評量。高雄:復文圖書出版公司。
郭生玉(1987)。心理與教育測驗。台北:精華書局。
陳新轉(2001)。課程統整理論與設計解說。商鼎。
陳淑敏(1994)。Vygotsky的心理發展理論和教育。屏東師院學報,new window
7,119-144。
陳國彥(2001)。社會領域課程與教學。台北:學富。
許世在(1986)。國民小學社會科教學現況及改進途徑之研究。高雄:復文。
莊明貞(1998)。真實性評量在教改中相關論題:一個多元文化教育觀點思考。教育資料與研究,20,19-23.
馮朝霖(2002)。根本建構論理論發展之哲學反思。載於詹志禹(編),建構─理論基礎與教育應用(頁28-48)。台北:正中書局。new window
單文經(2001)。教學引論。學富文化。
游家政(1998)。建構主義取向課程設計的評析。課程與教學季刊,1(3)new window
,31-46。
游家政(1999)。再造「國民教育九年一貫課程」的圖像-課程綱要的規劃構想與可能問題。教育資料與研究,26,4-17。new window
黃人傑、董秀蘭、鄧毓浩(1997)。議題中心教學模式在高中公民類科教學的應用。載於台灣省高級中學八十五學年度人文及社會學科教學輔導團研究發展組三民主義及公民科,21-49。
黃政傑(1997)。多元化的教學方法。台北:師大書苑。
黃炳煌(1999):邁向二十一世紀的臺灣社會科課程改革。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會(編),九年一貫課程研討會論文集(頁173-195)。臺北:中華民國教材研究發展學會。
Bogdan,R.C.,& Biklen,S.K.(1998/2001). Qualitative Research for Education: an Introduction to Theory and Methods.
黃光雄(主譯)。質性教育研究。嘉義:濤石文化事業有限公司。
甯自強(1996)。淺談建構主義教學的幾個概念。教育研究雙月刊,49
,4-6。
楊龍立(1997)。課程目標的理論研究-課程目標應否存在的探討。台北:文景書局。
甄曉蘭、曾志華(1997)。建構教學理念的興起與應用。國民教育研究學報,3,179-208。new window
甄曉蘭(2002)。從學科觀點探究建構教學理念於國小各科教學之應用:研究經驗分享與省思。論文化表於國科會人文處主辦之教育學門成果發表會「教育改革的未來」,台北。
詹志禹(1997)。評量改革為什麼要進行---回應吳毓瑩「評量的蛻變與突破」。現代教育論壇,2,204-206。new window
詹志禹(1999)。九年一貫社會科課程綱要草案背後的哲學觀,教育研究,66,54-60。new window
詹志禹(2002)。認識與知識:建構論VS.接受觀。載於詹志禹(編),建構論-理論基礎與教育應用(頁12-27)。台北:正中。new window
趙金祈、許榮富、黃芳裕(1995)。建構論在科學教育研究的典範類型與應用(一)-建構論的典範與評析。科學教育月刊,180,2-16。new window
廖添富(1997)。IEA公民教育研究-台灣地區之個案研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。
廖添富(1998)。議題中心教學對國中生「公民參與態度」影響之實驗研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,NSC87-
2413-H-003-020。
潘世尊(1999)。根本建構主義及其教學意含。教育研究,7,203-216。
歐用生(1998)。我國社會科教育的回顧與展望。載於歐用生、楊慧文著:新世紀的課程改革-兩岸觀點(頁105-140)。台北:五南。new window
歐用生(1999)(第六版)。國民小學社會科教學研究。台北:師大書苑。
蔡清田(1998)。建構主義的課程設計。課程與教學,1(3)。1-13。new window
劉勝德(1987)。小學社會科課程結構與內涵。高雄:復文
劉宏文(2002)。建構主義的認識論觀點及其在科學教育上的意義。載於詹志禹(編),建構─理論基礎與教育應用(頁264-284)。台北:正中書局。new window
劉世雄(2000)。主題探究式教學策略之行動研究。取自http://iuss.tntcap
.edu.tw/inquiry/paper.htm
劉美慧(1996)。美國社會科課程標準之評介。花蓮師院學報,6,129-145。new window
劉美慧(1997)。 議題中心教學法的理論與實際。花蓮師院學報,8,173-new window
200。
劉美慧(1999)。多元文化取向的社會科教學研究。高雄:復文
董秀蘭(1998)。議題中心教學法在國中法治教育課程的應用:結構性爭論模式的實例。人文及社會學科教學通訊,9(2),53-64。
鄭明長(1997)。課程實施與教室之討論歷程的詮釋分析:以國小五年級社會課觀察為例。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
鄭麗玉(2000)。認知與教學。台北:五南。new window
蔣素靜(1983)。課程目標之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
簡淑真(1998)。建構論及其在幼兒教育上的應用。課程與教學季刊,new window
1(3),61-80。
貳、英文部分
Allen , M. G. & Steven, R. L.(1994).Middle grades social studies:
Teaching and learning for active and responsible citizenship. Boston: Allyn and Bancon.
Allen R. F.(1996) The Engle-Ochoa decision making model for
citizenship education. In R.W.Evans, & D.W.Saxe,(Eds.),Handbook
on teaching social issues(pp.51-58).Washington,DC:Natonal
Council for the Social Studies.
Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and Curriculum. London: RKP.
Applefield, J. M., Huber, R. & Moallem, M. ( 2001).Constructivism in
theory and practice: Toward a better understanding. High School
Journal, Dec. 2000/Jan. 2001, Vol. 84 Issue 2, pp. 35-53.
Appleton,K.(1989). A learning model for science education. Research in Science Education,19,13-24.
Arends, R. I. (1997). Classroom Instruction and Management. New York:
McGraw-Hall.
Aronowitz, S. & Giroux, H. A.(1991). Postmodern education:Politics,
culture and social criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Avery, P. G., & Sullivan, J. L., & Sandell, S.(1996). Issues-centered
approach to teaching civics and government. In R. W. Evans, & D.
W. Saxe, (Eds). Handbook on teaching social issues(pp.199-120).
Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
Bettencourt, A.(1989). What is constructivism and why are they all
talking about it? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
325 402).
Brooks, J. G. (1990). Teachers and students: constructivists forging new
connection. Educational Leadership,47(5),68-71.
Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G.. (1993). The case for constructivist
classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Brophy, J. (1990). Teaching social studies for understanding and high
order thinking applications. The Elementary School Journal,
90, 351-417.
Brophy, J. & Alleman,J.(1996). Powerful Social Studies for Elementary
Students. NY: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Bruner, J. S.(1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press
Bybee, R., Harms, N., Ward, B., Yager, R. (1980), Science Society and
science education, Science Education, 64(3),377-395.
Bybee, R.W., & Landes, N. M. (1988). The biological science curriculum study (BSCS). Science and Children, 25(8), 36-37.
Confrey,J.(1995). How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches, and social constructivism? In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale(Eds.),Constructivism in Education (pp.185-
225). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Clandinin & Connelly(1992).
Delisle, R. (1997). How to Use Problem-Based Learning in the
Classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, Virginia ,USA.
Doolittle, P. E. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of Zone of proximal
development as a theoretical foundation for cooperative learning.
Retrieved from: http://www.chre.vt.edu/f-s/doolittle/research/
vcl.pdf
Driver, R. & Oldham, V. (1986). A Constructivist approach to
curriculum development in science. Studies in Science
Education,13,105-122.
Dynneson, T. L. & Gross, R. E.(1991). The educational perspective:
Citizenship education in American society. In T. L. Dynneson & R.
E. Gross(ed.),Social science perspective on citizenship education ,
(pp.1-42). New and York and London: Teacher College, Columbia
University.
Foote, C. J., Vermette, P. J., & Battaglia, C. F. (2001).Constructivist
Strategies : Meeting Standards And Engaging Adolescent Minds. Larchmont, N. Y : Eye On Education.
Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners :A
constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gagnon,G.W.,& ollay, M.(2001).Designing for Learning-Six Elements
in Constructivist Classrooms. California: Sage.
Giroux, H. (1983). Critical Theory and Rationality in Citizenship
Education. In H. Giroux, & D. Purpel, (eds). The Hidden Curriculum and Moral Education. CA: McCutechan.
Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as Intellectuals. N.Y.: Bergin & Garrey.
Hargreaves,A.(1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’
work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
Hartoonian,H.M. & Langhlin,M.A.(1989). Designing a social studies
scope and sequence for the 21st Century. Social Education(October)
,388-398.
Henderson, J.G. & Hawthorne, R.D. ( 2000) . Transformative curriculum
Leadership(2nd). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen,D.H.(1991). Evaluation Constructivistic Learning,Educaational
Technology,31(9):28-33.
Jones, B. F., Pierce, J. & Hunter, B. (1988). Teaching students to construct graphic representations. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 20-25.
Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigationg mathematics teaching. London :
The Falmer Press.
Jarolimek,J.(1973).In pursuit of the Elusive New Social Studies. Educational Leadership,p.30.
Kadel, S. (1992). Problem-Centered Learning in Mathematics and
Science.(ERIC Document Reprocuction Sercvice. ED 342681)
Kilpatrick,J.(1987). What constructivism might be in mathematics
education. In J.C. Bergeron etc.(Eds.), Proceeding of the psychology
of mathematics education, (Vol. 1, 19-25),Montreal.
Kuhn, T. S.(1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.
Linn,R.L. & Gronlund ,N.E.(1995). Measurement and assessment in
teaching. London: Prentice-Hall.
Martorella, P. H.(1985). Elementary social studies:Developing reflective
,competent and concerned citizens. Boston:Little,Brown & Co.
Martorella, P. H.(2001). Teaching social studies in middle and secondary
schools.(3rd ed.) New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
Michigan State Board of Education (1996). Powerful and Authentic
Social Studies (PASS ) Standards for Teaching. Michigan :
Michigan State Board of Education . Retrieved from
http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-6525_6530_6568-1945
2--,00.html
Millar,R.(1989).Constructive criticisms.International Journal of Science
Education,11,587-596.
Miles,M.B., & Huberman,A.M.(1994).Qualitative data analysis(2nd ed.).
Beverly Hills,CA:Sage.
National Council for Socail Studies(1994).Expectations of Excellence:
Curriculum Standards for Social Studies.Washington,DC: National
Council for the Social Studies.
Novak, J.D.(1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two meta-Cognitive
tools facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science,19,29-52.
Nussbaum, J.(1989). Classroom conceptual change : Philosophical
perspectives.Internationa lJournal of Science Education,11,530-
540.
Oxfold R. L (1997) Constructivism: shape-shifting , substance, and
teacher education application, Peabody Journal of Education,
72(1), p.35-66.
Piaget,J.(1970).Genetic epistemology. Translated by Eleanor Duckworth.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1992). Creating constructivist environments
and constructing creative mathematics. Educational Studies in
Mathematics,23,505-528.
Post, T. S., Ellis, A. K., Humphreys, A. H., & Buggey, L. J.(1997).
Interdisciplinary approaches to curriculum: Themes for teaching.
Prentice Hall,Canada.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Educational technology at the cross-road: New
minders and new directions. Educational Technology Research &
Development,37(1),67 -80.
Rogoff,B.(1990). Apprenticeship in thinking:Cognitive development in social context. New York:Oxford University Press.
Ross,E.W.(1997).The Struggle for the social studies curriculum. In E.W.
Ross(Ed.),The social studies curriculum : Purpose, problems, and Possibilities,(pp.3-20).New York: State University of New York.
Sampson,E.E.(1981).Cognitive psychology as ideology. American Psychologist,36,730-743.
Simon, M. A.(1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a
constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 26,114-115.
Steffe , L.P. & Gale, J.(Eds.)(1995). Constructivism in education.
Hillsdale. NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sunal, C. S. & Haas, M. E. (2002). Social studies for the elementary and
middle grades: a constructivist approach. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Taylor,P. & Campbell-Williams,M.(1993). Discourse towards balanced
rationality in the high school mathematics classroom : Ideas from
Habermas’s critical theory, In P. C. S. Taylor and A. J. Malone
(Eds.). Constructivist Interpretations of Teaching and Learning
Mathematics. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
Taylor, P. C. S.(1990). The influence of teacher beliefs on constructivist
teaching practices. Paper presented at the Annul Meeting of the
American Research Association. Boston, MA, April 1990.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320883)
Thompson,A.(1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conception: A synthsis of
The research. In D. A. Grouw(Ed.). Handbook of research on
Mathmatics teaching and learning(pp.127-146). N.Y.:Macmillan.
Tobin, K. G. & Tippins, D. J. (1993). Referents for change in believes.
Science and Education,3,145-164.
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In
P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality: How do we know what we
believe we know? (pp. 17-40). New York: Norton.
von Glasersfeld, E.(1989).Cognition, construction of knowledge and
teaching. Synthese,80(1),121-140.
Von Glasersfeld(1995a). Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and
Learning. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.
Von Glasersfeld, E.(1995b).A constructivist approach to teaching. In L.P.
Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.) ,Constructivism in Education (pp.3-15).
Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Vygotsky, L. A. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wagner, R. K.(1993). Practical problem-Solving. In Phillip Hallinger
(ed.). Cognitive Perspectives on educational leadership : critical
issues in educational leadership series. N.Y.:Teacher College Press.
Watts, M., & Bentley, D.(1991). Constructivism in the curriculum: Can
we close the gap between the strong theoretical version and the
weak version of theory-in-practice? The Curriculum Journal,2(2)
,171-182.
Wertsh, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind.
Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsh, J. V. (1991). Voice of the mind : A sociocultural approach to
mediated action. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and
mathematics learning. Science Education,75,9-21。
Winking,D.L.,&Bond,L.A.(1995). Transforming teaching and learning in
urban schools through alternative assessment. Oak Brook, IL: North
Central Regional Educational Lab.(ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No.ED397201)
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE